I would instead break it down into the claim that some Force could theoretically give us eternal bliss or suffering (A), and the further set of complicated claims involved in Pascal’s brand of Christianity.
Conditional on A: the further claim that religion would prevent us from using the Force in the way we’d prefer seems vastly more plausible to me, based on the evidence, than Pascal’s alternative. And there are various other possibilities we’d have to consider. I don’t believe the Wager style of argument works, for the reasons given or alluded to in the OP—but if it worked I believe it would argue for atheism.
I would instead break it down into the claim that some Force could theoretically give us eternal bliss or suffering (A), and the further set of complicated claims involved in Pascal’s brand of Christianity.
Conditional on A: the further claim that religion would prevent us from using the Force in the way we’d prefer seems vastly more plausible to me, based on the evidence, than Pascal’s alternative. And there are various other possibilities we’d have to consider. I don’t believe the Wager style of argument works, for the reasons given or alluded to in the OP—but if it worked I believe it would argue for atheism.